politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Political cross-dressing
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Political cross-dressing
One of the oddest political developments is how certain concerns are seen as the exclusive property of one side or other of the Left/Right political divide, almost regardless of the nature of the issue or the reality of a party’s record.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Please contact mike at politicalbetting.com
Is it simply that almost everyone on the right is a greedy, selfish bastard, or is there a more nuanced explanation?
Every so often the greedy, selfish bastards think there might be votes in it.
Vote 1 - Govt Defeat by 270-229.
Amendment passed to give physical documentation to EU citizens.
This is the only government ever with a green record on that agenda. Just as it was a Conservative PM and government who dealt with the ozone hole etc.
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-01-20/brexit-international-monetary-fund-forecast-imf-britain-growth/
At present, Conservatives in Britain seem to me to be making a reasonably serious effort to get to grips with the issue, since they see a Blue/Green partnership as a useful extension to their core vote which won't lead them into unacceptable compromises. The German CDU certainly sees the Greens as acceptable partners. Among authoritarian regimes, China is showing a fair amount of awareness in the abrupt way that such regimes act (they're about to suddenly make plastics bags illegal), though Russia appears oblivious The main standout seems to be in the US, where as Cyclefree says there are lots of free marketeers who see it all as a commie plot. Having a lot of space makes the discussion harder - it's at least feasible to have a lot more landfill in Siberia, not so much in Bedfordshire.
The main problem is that although in Europe almost everyone buys into this stuff in principle, if it comes to major decisions then people peel off rapidly. For instance, it appears from a whole series of UN and other reports that we need to reduce meat consumption significantly because of the climate change impact (not just methane etc. but also the forest clearances to produce more and more animal feed), but even Caroline Lucas is wary of doing more than suggesting that a meat tax might be discussed.
IE. How much more is it going to cost me to run my car or go on holiday?
What it means is, rebuilding all infrastructure everywhere so it's green as fck, and that will both save the planet and create gazillions of new jobs.
It's bad news for Sanders and Buttigieg, and good news for Biden, Klobuchar and Warren. This is the second Iowa poll in a row to put Klobuchar in double digits. And it's the second poll to show the Left lane choosing Warren over Sanders.
My guess, for what it's worth, is that Sanders has lost support over his tussle with Warren at the last debate, especially with women. And that Klobuchar is making a late run at being the acceptable moderate.
It's worth noting that Warren gets the majority of Sanders second choices, while Sanders gets just a third of Warren's. Her surge makes a victory for the "left lane" of the Democrats more likely.
I think he's around 2-1 for Iowa.
https://www.focusonruralamerica.com/2020/01/20/january-poll-results/
On Betfair, Biden is second favourite at 3s. That looks about right, or possibly a bit generous.
Sanders, however, looks way too short at 2.7. Warren is too long at 6.4. Buttigieg is probably right at 5.3. Klobuchar might be worth a small flutter at 15s. While Yang should be 400, not 40.
I still think Buttigieg will win Iowa. Only a couple of weeks now.
Sanders was clear second a week ago. I wrote yesterday that he was the favourite for Iowa. But there have now been two datapoints that throw severe doubt on that, and which have him in (respectively) fourth and fifth position in Iowa. Both of them show him failing to make the 15% cutoff. That's not good news for him.
Or if you dont want four more years of Trump.
I assume that the FL poll that has Trumpton 'feeling the Bern' is something of an outlier!!
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/general_election/
Imagine there are four candidates statewide, with two on 35%, and two on 15%.
They all make the 15% threshold and get proportionate delegates, right?
Ah but...
The person on 35% statewide will get (say) 25-45% of the vote in each precinct. By contrast the person on 15% will get 10-20%. In other words, at 15%, you'll probably only get delegates in half of precincts. So, being at 20% rather than 12% can make a massive difference in the number of delegates you get.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries
"We asked Iowans if they had a chance to watch Tuesday’s final debate before the caucus. 51% said they watched all or some of it. 40% said they saw none of it. This is a lower number of debate-watchers compared to those who took our survey following the June debate. But, 73% said they saw quite a bit or some of the news coverage of the debate.
We asked if there are candidates that you are now considering after watching the debate. 16% said Biden, 11% said Klobuchar, 10% said Warren, 9% said Buttigieg and 7% said Sanders.
We asked if there are candidates that you have definitely decided NOT to support based on their debate performance? 12% said Warren, 11% said Sanders, 4% said Steyer, 3% said Biden and Buttigieg and2% said Klobuchar."
But I agree that the poll suggests that Sanders is not transfer-friendly among those planning to support minor candidates as their first preference.
Clinton won for the Dems with 50% and Cruz for the Reps with 28%, so 24% for the leading candidate in the poll is not that great.
Pleasant reading for me as I am very green on Buttigieg
Usdaw have nominated him.
The city took a big bet that the Tory election would lead to a sterling rise and increasing investment. Neither of these have happened yet. The question is what happens next. Business starts believing in Brexit and invests, the Tories change the plan or the markets start to panic. This feels like a game of chicken between the government and business.
In addition, although Florida has failed to deliver for the Democrats by the finest of margins in past elections, since January 2019 some 23% of black residents are no longer disenfranchised on account of having a spent conviction.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/finance/other/housing-market-back-with-a-bang-as-buyers-flood-back-after-election/ar-BBZ8Vq8
One (recent) facet of this is the crusade against meat. In fact, it’s where the meat is from and how it’s reared that’s the issue (meat isn’t intrinsically bad, or good for the environment) but it’s become a target due to assiduous campaigning by pressure groups and because reducing meat consumption is an action most people can choose to take who feel impotent to do anything else.
Ruminates are actually remarkably efficient converters of cellulose (which we can’t eat) into protein (which we can). In the UK they usually graze on grass uplands that’d be pretty useless for anything else, such as crop growing. If we replace meat with soy or palm oil based ‘vegan’ derivatives that require importing from areas around the world that have suffered forest or land clearance to produce them then we are going precisely nowhere. In fact, we’re making it worse. So policy here should be focused on origin and how the meat is reared and produced. As always, nothing is black or white, and the embryonic social phenomena of ‘meat shaming’ needs to stop. It’s part of a healthy balanced diet.
An even bigger contribution the Government could make to reducing CO2 emissions (like, right now) would be to encourage domestic switching from gas central heating to air/ground heat pumps ASAP with huge grants and subsidies but they seem remarkably timid about this.
So instead we’re left with declaring emergencies, talking about how much we’re cutting back on flying (we’re not and we can’t, most people do it anyway and just “offset”) and pretending to change our diets to the latest fad; a fabulously British obsession.
It’s all rather silly really but the tragedy is it’s almost entirely cosmetic.
One of the most farcical aspects of Green politics is the nearly absolute ignorance among greens as to the advances that have occurred in the last decade. We are on course to:
- Have no coal sourced electricity generation by the end of this parliament (its practically dead already). Gas is much more efficient in terms of carbon emissions than coal.
- Replace 12% of existing grid capacity with more offshore wind by the end of the parliament.
- End sales of non-ICE cars by 2030.
- Go carbon neutral before 2050.
Do a thought experiment - suppose you lived in a safe seat for your preferred party. Would you vote for a different party so as to give them some encouragement? For most of us, probably not?
It's a lot more open in the ballot paper for deputy, where I think the left will try hard to get Burgon on the ballot with a decent number of nominations, and Butler may have a shot too. Rayner is streets ahead for the actual result, though, and seems not to be experiencing serious challenge as the generally acceptable candidate.
* this has been forecast on PB every year for the past 12 years
He must be well liked.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/01/the-terrifying-parable-of-laurence-foxs-question-time-appearance/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
There are plenty of ways the party could end.
A friend was recently offered by his bank the following*: London money in Manchester....